LogFAQs > #958094850

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Arv doesn't agree with her body her choice
LinkPizza 09/15/21 8:41:20 PM #28:	adjl posted... Does any other person that's involved in the kid's life have to pay child support in exchange for that involvement? Nope. But he does. And I think it would be unfair to give up your rights so you dont have to pay child support, only to get those rights back later when you dont have to pay anymore. Seems kind of wrong adjl posted... That's completely arbitrary, though, and not altogether practical to enforce. You're literally suggesting a restraining order that the subject of the order (the child) doesn't agree to and can never override, for the sake of arbitrarily attaching major consequences to what's functionally nothing more than a custody decision. The infrastructure already exists to grant one parent sole custody without resorting to restraining orders (outside of extreme cases where the other parent really doesn't cope well with that decision, but that's in response to actual criminal harassment). There's no reason this system couldn't just follow that. I dont see it as arbitrary. It could possibly be hard to enforce. Though, maybe not. Really depends on the people that do decide to use it. Depending on the consequences of breaking those rules, it could dissuade people from breaking them Also, I see it as more than a custody situation. Because its different than a custody situation. This is a form of breaking off contact and a relationship with someone altogether. If it was just custody, you wouldnt need to basically perform a male abortion. You just dont take custody. This is different, though --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. <cite>LinkPizza posted [p:958094850] in Arv doesn'... [t:79660931]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Does any other person that's involved in the kid's life have to pay child support in exchange for that involvement?</quote> Nope. But he does. And I think it would be unfair to give up your rights so you dont have to pay child support, only to get those rights back later when you dont have to pay anymore. Seems kind of wrong adjl posted...</cite> <quote>That's completely arbitrary, though, and not altogether practical to enforce. You're literally suggesting a restraining order that the subject of the order (the child) doesn't agree to and can never override, for the sake of arbitrarily attaching major consequences to what's functionally nothing more than a custody decision. The infrastructure already exists to grant one parent sole custody without resorting to restraining orders (outside of extreme cases where the other parent really doesn't cope well with that decision, but that's in response to actual criminal harassment). There's no reason this system couldn't just follow that.</quote> I dont see it as arbitrary. It could possibly be hard to enforce. Though, maybe not. Really depends on the people that do decide to use it. Depending on the consequences of breaking those rules, it could dissuade people from breaking them Also, I see it as more than a custody situation. Because its different than a custody situation. This is a form of breaking off contact and a relationship with someone altogether. If it was just custody, you wouldnt need to basically perform a male abortion. You just dont take custody. This is different, though --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1